Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 02-Jan-2025 17:46:50 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.459 of 2016 and batch of Writ Petitions (In W.P.(C) No.459 of 2016) (In the matters of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Chinmaya Pasayat & Ors. …. Petitioner(s) Union of India & Others …. Opposite Party (s) -versus- Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Biswajeet Nayak, Adv. Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, Adv. Mr. L. N. Patel, Adv. Mr. Biswabihari Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Sohan Mishra, Adv. Mr.S. K. Nanda, Adv. Mr. S. K. Ojha, Adv. Mr. D.P. Dhalsamant, Adv. Mr. P. K. Panda, Adv. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Ld. Addl. Solicitor General of India along with Mr. Somyajit Pani, Mr. S. D. Das, Sr. Adv. Along with associates Mr. B. S. Raiguru, CGC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-25.09.2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.12.2024 W.P.(C) No.459 of 2016 along with WP(C) Nos.22914 of 2015, 22915 of 2015, 23061 of 2015, 23063 of 2015, 568 of 2016, 6592 of 2016, 15241 of 2016 and 18652 of 2016 Page 1 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 02-Jan-2025 17:46:50 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. Since common question of facts and law are involved in all the above- mentioned Writ Petitions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, this Court felt it apposite to deal with the W.P.(C) No.459 of 2016 as the leading case for proper adjudication of all these cases. 2. In W.P.(C) No.459 of 2016, the petitioners are challenging the selection process to the post of Security Guard T&S Grade G of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Facts
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) A notice of employment for the position of Security Guard T&S Grade G was issued by Mahanadi Coalfields Limited vide an advertisement dated 19.02.2014, for 303 vacancies. Of these, 158 posts were allocated to the General category, while 145 posts were reserved, in accordance with the State Quota outlined in the Office Memorandum dated 05.07.2005 and the guidelines issued on 29.01.2023 by the Department of Personnel and Training, with the reservation as follows: 16% for Scheduled Castes (SC), 22% for Scheduled Tribes (ST), and 12% for Other Backward Classes (OBC). Therefore, the seats reserved were as follows: 33 posts for Scheduled Castes (SC), 66 posts for Scheduled Tribes (ST), and 36 posts for Other Backward Classes (OBC). (ii) Advertisements for the Security Guard T&S Grade G post were also published in different newspapers, dated 19.02.2014, with a note that reservation for SC, ST, OBC, Physically Handicapped, and Ex- Page 2 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 02-Jan-2025 17:46:50 Servicemen would apply as per the rules and guidelines of the Government of India. (iii) The eligibility criteria for the post were fixed as Indian nationals who are Ex-Army/Ex-BSF personnel, NCC/A certificate holders, or Sportsman of All India repute, with Matriculation or an equivalent qualification from a recognized Board. (iv) A written test was conducted, followed by an interview, and a select list was published. (v) The petitioners, who are NCC/A certificate holders and met the eligibility criteria, qualified the written test but did not find their names on the select list after the interview. (vi) The select list contained a ’Note No. 2,’ which stated that reservation for Ex-Servicemen had been applied in accordance with the Government of India guidelines and purportedly included a 24.5% reservation. (vii) Aggrieved by the provision of reservation to Ex-Servicemen, which was allegedly contrary to the advertisement dated 19.02.2014 and resulted in the total reservation exceeding 50%, the petitioners have approached
Legal Reasoning
this Court in the present writ petition. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The petitioners submitted that the reservation for Ex-Servicemen granted by Mahanadi Coalfields Limited was unlawful, as the employment notice dated 19.02.2014 did not specify any such reservation. While the notice explicitly outlined reservations for Page 3 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 02-Jan-2025 17:46:50 candidates belonging to SC, ST, and OBC categories, no provision was made for Ex-Servicemen. The recruitment process must strictly adhere to the terms of the advertisement, and any deviation therefrom would render the process impermissible. (ii) The petitioners submitted that it is a settled position of law that the total reservation should not exceed 50% of the total vacancies, as laid down in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India.1 By including the Ex-Servicemen reservation, the total reservation exceeded the 50% ceiling, amounting to 74.5%, with 16% for SC, 22% for ST, 12% for OBC, and 24.5% for Ex- Servicemen. (iii) The petitioners contended that if any reservation for Ex-Servicemen was to be provided, it ought to have been in the form of horizontal reservation, in line with the guidelines issued by the Government of India. Instead of being allocated horizontally across the SC, ST, and OBC categories, the Ex-Servicemen were adjusted solely within the General category. This misapplication resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of General category posts available for other eligible candidates. (iv) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited had misapplied the principle of horizontal reservation in the recruitment process. Moreover, the claim made by the respondents that the selected Ex-Servicemen candidates had not availed of any age relaxation was factually incorrect. Out of the 74 candidates selected under the 24.5% horizontal reservation for Ex-Servicemen, 50 candidates had availed of age relaxation. Nevertheless, all these 1(2000) 1 SCC 168 Page 4 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 02-Jan-2025 17:46:50 candidates were adjusted solely within the General category, which constituted a clear misapplication of the horizontal reservation policy. (v) The petitioners submitted that Mahanadi Coalfields Limited inconsistently applied reservation policies by following the State Government’s reservation policy for SC, ST, and OBC categories while simultaneously adhering to the Central Government’s policy for Ex- Servicemen. The petitioners contended that the Ex-Servicemen reservation should have been limited to 3% under the State policy. However, the respondents allocated 24.5% in line with the Central policy, thereby adopting inconsistent standards and aggravating the violation. (vi) The petitioners further submitted that the recruitment process, which began in 2014, had caused significant delays, resulting in undue hardship. Having qualified the written test and interview, they had been awaiting consideration for their appointments. The petitioners contended that their case should be sympathetically considered as a person’s right should not be extinguished due to the efflux of time. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 5. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The advertisements published in various newspapers on 19.02.2014 included a provision for 24.5% reservation for Ex-Servicemen, in accordance with the Ministry of Defence circular dated 04.06.2014. The petitioners, having been aware of this reservation, participated in the Page 5 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 02-Jan-2025 17:46:50 selection process and, therefore, are precluded from challenging its validity at this stage. (ii) The petitioners’ contentions regarding the omission of details of reservation cannot be sustained, and the entire recruitment process of 2015 cannot be vitiated on this basis alone, as the omission is inconsequential. To buttress this argument, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s observations in University of Cochin v. N.S. Kanjoonjamma & Ors2, where it was expressed that omission to mention that it was a special recruitment for reserved posts in the advertisement is inconsequential. (iii) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, being a Central Public Sector Undertaking (CPSU)/ has adhered to the Central Government’s policy regarding Ex-Servicemen reservation. The state policy for the reservation of SC (16%), ST (22%), and OBC (12%) was applied as per the Office Memorandum dated 05.07.2005 by the Government of India. (iv) The petitioners failed to meet the basic cutoff criteria for consideration for employment. The cutoff marks for the last candidate in different categories were stated as follows: UR: 42.5, OBC: 37.5, SC: 34.5, ST: 24.5, and ESM-Gen: 31.5. The petitioners have scored significantly less than the cut off marks and therefore do not fall within the zone of consideration. Therefore, their claims lack merit. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 6. Heard Learned Counsels for the parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 2(1997)4 SCC426 Page 6 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 02-Jan-2025 17:46:50 7. The central issue that demands determination in the present case is whether the 24.5% horizontal reservation for Ex-Servicemen, as mandated by the Ministry of Defence Circular dated 04.06.2014, has been correctly implemented in the recruitment process for the post of Security Guard T&S Grade G by Mahanadi Coalfields Limited. 8. Before delving into the specific application of the Ex-Servicemen reservation, it is imperative to first examine the underlying principle of horizontal reservation and its intended implementation. In Indra Sawhney (supra),the Supreme Court, drawing a distinction between horizontal and vertical reservations, provided a comprehensive exposition of the concept. It is clarified that horizontal reservations intersect with vertical reservations, forming an interlocking framework. Crucially, they do not affect the total percentage allocated to vertical reservations. The relevant paragraph is produced hereinbelow: “812. … There are two types of reservations, which may, for the sake of convenience/ be referred to as ‘vertical reservations’ and ‘horizontal reservations’. The reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes [under Article 16(4)] may be called vertical reservations whereas reservations in favour of physically handicapped [under clause (1) of Article 16] can be referred to as horizontal reservations. Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations — what is called interlocking reservations. To be more precise, suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons; this would be a reservation relatable to clause (1) of Article 16. The persons selected against this quota will be placed in the appropriate category; if he belongs to SC category he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; similarly, if he belongs to Page 7 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 02-Jan-2025 17:46:50 open competition (OC) category, he will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments. Even after providing for these horizontal reservations, the percentage of reservations in favour of backward class of citizens remains — and should remain — the same. This is how these reservations are worked out in several States and there is no reason not to continue that procedure.” 9. The provision under the Ministry of Defence Circular dated 04.06.2014, mandating a 24.5% reservation for Ex-Servicemen, is of a special nature and fundamentally distinct from social reservations typically allocated to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. Unlike social reservations, which seek to address historical injustices and disadvantages suffered by certain groups, the Ex-Servicemen reservation is specifically designed to honor and benefit those who have served in the armed forces. It is, therefore, a horizontal reservation, cutting across the vertical categories of General, SC, ST, and OBC, ensuring that Ex-Servicemen receive equitable opportunities within each of these categories without disturbing the overall structure of vertical reservations. 10. The Supreme Court, in Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh3 had provided a detailed procedure for the application of horizontal and vertical reservations in recruitment processes as hereinunder: “18. …The proper and correct course is to first fill up the OC quota (50%) on the basis of merit; then fill up each of the social reservation quotas, i.e., SC, ST and BC; the third step would be to find out how many candidates belonging to special reservations have been selected on the above basis. If 31995 (5) SCC 173 Page 8 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 02-Jan-2025 17:46:50 the quota fixed for horizontal reservations is already satisfied — in case it is an overall horizontal reservation — no further question arises. But if it is not so satisfied, the requisite number of special reservation candidates shall have to be taken and adjusted/accommodated against their respective social reservation categories by deleting the corresponding number of candidates therefrom. (If, however, it is a case of compartmentalised horizontal reservation, then the process of verification and adjustment/ accommodation as stated above should be applied separately to each of the vertical reservations. In such a case, the reservation of fifteen per cent in favour of special categories, overall/ may be satisfied or may not be satisfied.)...” 11. In the context of the application of both horizontal and vertical reservation, the Supreme Court in Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh4 clarified that a person belonging to an intersection of vertical- horizontal reserved categories who secures sufficient merit to qualify without relying on the vertical reservation would be considered as qualifying in the general (open competition) category. Such a candidate cannot be excluded from the horizontal quota in the general category, as their merit qualifies them independently of the vertical reservation. 12. In the same vein, in Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission5, the Supreme Court observed: “9. …Social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC under Article 16(4) are “vertical reservations”. Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women, etc./ under Articles 16(1) or 15(3) are “horizontal reservations”. Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a Backward Class under Article 16(4), the